Two weeks ago the media was thrilled and alarmed by a film of a “lost” tribe of naked, painted Indians, living somewhere on the Brazil-Peru border and firing arrows at a helicopter flying overhead. Some reports claimed that this tribe was previously uncontacted by the modern world. But some anthropologists admitted that “this group is one of many in the Amazon that have chosen isolation.”

The fact that this tribe chose isolation did not stop the activists from the Brazilian government’s National Indian Foundation from distributing these films worldwide. They deliberately violated this tribe’s privacy because they wanted to use these Indians to prove that logging can be harmful to indigenous people.

Of course, the film shows no proof that loggers have violated this indigenous group’s privacy. It only shows proof that environmentalists violated their privacy. It also shows how much the natives appreciated their presence.

Writing for Haaretz, thousands of miles away from the Brazil-Peru border, environmentalist Dan Rabinowitz projects his own heartfelt feelings onto the Indians and their arrows:

The arrows fired at the helicopter, which could have been seen as an instinctive, boorish response to an unfamiliar entity, should perhaps be read by us as a piercing critique of modernity. … If the pictures cause the liberal public around the world to lean on governments and make them save primordial forests, those who fired arrows at the helicopters will have done a huge service for a modern civilization bent on self-destruction. Perhaps as a sign of gratitude for their participation in this crucial campaign, they could be granted the ultimate prize: to be left alone, free of contact with a civilization they clearly do not want.

They will be left alone — until other “helpful” people decide that they can be a useful tool in a war against the logging companies. Then the helicopters will descend again, to take colorful pictures of the natives and their piercing critiques of modernity.

These films are just the latest, and least harmful, illustration of the fact that the environmentalist movement is a road to hell paved with good intentions. Yes, their goals sound noble — they want to preserve the wild spaces, clean up the oceans, save endangered species. But their actions often create more harm than good.

Much of the modern environmental movement was inspired by Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring. Anti-corporate, anti-globalist, pro-ecology campaigns usually follow the formula established by the activist opposition to DDT.

Gather evidence that some form of human activity is having an effect on the environment. In Silent Spring, it was the effect DDT was having on bird’s eggs.

Emphasize the malign effects of this human activity while downplaying the positive effects.

Accuse corporations of spreading disinformation, and claim that public officials favorable to profit and capitalism are accepting industry claims uncritically.

Envision the dystopia, apocalypse, or ripple of evil that will result from this unchecked capitalist/corporate abuse. Demand that the government step in.

One of the most harmful effects of this activism was described by Nicholas Kristof in his op-ed in the New York Times, “It’s Time to Spray DDT.” As a good leftist, Kristof feels a need to condemn the U.S. and “other rich countries” for “siding with the mosquitoes against the world’s poor” by opposing DDT. But even a good leftist is willing to acknowledge that many thousands of people in the Third World are dying as a result of the “environmental politics and incompetent bureaucracies” that allowed malaria to spread unchecked.

Norman Borlaug — American agronomist, humanitarian, Nobel laureate, and the father of the Green Revolution — has little patience for “well-fed utopians who live on Cloud Nine but come into the Third World to cause all kinds of negative impacts,” unnecessarily frightening people and blocking the use of biotechnology. According to Paul Driessen in his article “Still Feeding the World,” Borlaug criticized:

These callous activists persuaded Zambia to let people starve, rather than let them eat biotech corn donated by the USA. They also oppose insecticides to combat malaria — and fossil fuels, hydroelectric dams, and nuclear power to generate abundant, reliable, affordable electricity for poor nations.

“Our planet has 6.5 billion people,” says Borlaug. “By all means, use manure. You can’t let it sit around. But if we use only organic fertilizers and methods on existing farmland, we can only feed 4 billion. I don’t see 2.5 billion people volunteering to disappear.” To feed everyone with organic and traditional farming, we would have to plow millions of acres of forests and other wildlife habitat, he calculates. If, instead, we continue to use commercial fertilizer and hybrids, and have strong public support for both biotech and traditional research, “the Earth can provide sufficient food for 10 billion people.”

Now they’ve turned their attention to the problem of global warming. They’ve done the usual business of gathering some evidence that a form of human activity has an impact on the environment, emphasizing the malign effects while downplaying anything positive, blaming capitalism — and they’ve demanded that the government do something to stop the oncoming apocalyptic ripple of evil that results from unchecked humanity.

The average environmentalist will probably react to this advice in the same way those “undiscovered” Indians reacted to the helicopters. Enviro-do-gooders have always shown an inclination to cling to the past, to Luddism and traditions. Although they talk about noble goals, their accomplishments have often been destructive. If we want to fix the future, they need to step aside. As John Mellencamp said: “It’s what you do and not what you say. If you’re not part of the future then get out of the way.”

40 Comments, 40 Threads

Great piece but I disagree with some of the premise. Enviroloons for the most part do not have good intentions. Most of them are merely re-hashed marxists and other form of extreme lefties who are doing their utmost to destroy capitalism. Enviromentalism is just the latest flag of convenience.

“Perhaps as a sign of gratitude for their participation in this crucial campaign, they could be granted the ultimate prize: to be left alone, free of contact with a civilization they clearly do not want.”

What a stupid statement. These backward people are only expressing their initial distrust of outsiders. The empirical evidence, however, is abundantly clear that soon they will eagerly embrace the benefits of modern society. They will have little hesitation to reject the so-called wisdom of their ancestors. Their grand children will almost certainly use cell phones and microwave ovens. We can also take for granted that Dan Rabinowitz is something of a hypocrite. What are the chances that he actually rejects the benefits of Western Civilization?

Millions of people have needlessly died because of the radical environmentalists. These intellectual Luddites have much blood on their hands. And no, we should not cut them any slack for “meaning well.” These scoundrels have often scandalously distorted facts and savagely attacked those who dared to take them to task. A half decent argument can be made that some of them should be arrested for crimes against humanity.

Teddy Roosevelt was an environmentalist. Most hunters and fishermen (like Ted Nugent) are environmentalists. Those who support the management of natural resources for the greatest good of the greatest number of people really are do-gooders. Environmentalists only become enviroloons when they abandon their humanity.

Like many forms of activism, environmentalism lost its sanity when it embraced Marxist tactics and ideals. This inspired lunatic and dangerous ideas like Peter Singer’s belief that a handicapped baby is a drain on resources, less ‘equal’ than a healthy chimp (and it would therefore be okay to kill the baby)

Human beings aren’t equal to all other animals on the planet. Unlike all other animals, we have the ability to affect all life on the planet, to be caretakers and creators. We also have the ability to destroy all life on the planet. We’re the alpha predator, which gives us certain rights and responsibilities. Nature isn’t a collective, it’s not even a democracy. Rabbits and gazelle will never be able to vote about whether they get eaten.

Some modern environmentalists believe that animals, and ‘gaia’ should be more equal than human beings. They base their actions on a marxist faith that ignores reason. Although they sometimes pretend to be helping people, their intent is usually malign.

“A half decent argument can be made that some of them should be arrested for crimes against humanity.”

That’s not a bad idea. If they can’t be arrested, they could probably be sued.

“The empirical evidence, however, is abundantly clear that soon they will eagerly embrace the benefits of modern society.”

Well, there’s the problem of the introduction of new diseases.

Most civilized countries make an effort to preserve their wild spaces, and to provide some land for cultures that don’t want to live like us. If this Indian group, like a kind of red-painted, arrow-shooting Amish, want to live apart from us, avoiding modern life and new technology, it probably wouldn’t be much of a problem to let them do it.

There’s no proof that their privacy was ever threatened by the modern world. So far, their privacy has only been threatened by environmentalists.

A good environmentalist needs to recognize that a healthy planet changes in ways that are catastrophic to certain groups and areas. (Nothing is scarier than stasis.) Science is our best tool for understanding how and when we should alter our behavior, but when science is used as a tool for political purpose it is distorted; and then what? The scientific community ought to be careful.

I wouldn’t say that “environmentalists are conservative extremists.” More like environmentalism has become a pagan religion, where Gaia is the creator goddess of all that is good, animals incarnate angelic spirits, and humans incarnate evil spirits. Eco-pagan environmentalists from groups like PETA believe literally what Huxley wrote satirically in Animal Farm, “four legs good; two legs bad.” In its most extreme “human extinction movement” forms, this Eco-paganism believes that humans are an infection on her body that needs to be wiped out.

There are many examples of tribes that want to preserve their past ways of life and culture — I visited one on the island of Tanna in Vanuatu in the South Pacific (near Fiji). My take away from that experience was at first the stunned realization that there were really people who live with nearly nothing modern — you could count the total number of metal objects in the village on two hands. They were definitely happy because they lived in a good climate where food literally fell out of the trees. As a consequence of this, they worked about 45 minutes a day, on average. They also had almost no use for money — the chief put any donations into a mattress and it just sat there, he really didn’t know what to do with it.

It sounds idyllic, and in some ways it is. However, even without all the trappings of modern living, they still had human conflict — jealousy, competition, showing off and the whole range of issues that afflict ALL humans. I’m sure this tribe in Vanuatu shares many similarities to the one in Brazil.

I say leave them alone, quit flying over their village and frightening them. If they want to come out an join modern society, we should welcome them with open arms.

In the meantime, let’s show some respect and stop using them for environmental propaganda!

Perhaps if someone mentioned to this tribe that a new invention called “sanitation” might add 20 to 30 years to their expected life-span they may not be so keen to shrug off the modern world….

Contact with our civilization, and with our previously unknown diseases, might cut their life expectancy.

Ignorance isn’t bliss, and I personally wouldn’t like to live like these Indians, or like the Amish, or like the various tribes who choose to live in the coldest reaches of the Arctic. Fortunately, they’re not asking me to live the way they do. They’re certainly not forcing me to live as they do.

Environmentalists don’t want 10 billion people. They complained about population explosion more than 4 decades ago. They don’t want humanity, unchecked or no. They are pretty selfish bunch. They enjoy their lives, jetset around the world to save it from humanity, i.e. you and me. They want a pristine environment in undeveloped countries but they don’t live there. They airlifted lobsters and Perrier everyday to feed themselves but denied native Africans clean drinking water.

I didn’t claim that the environmentalist ban of DDT killed millions. And I’m not a ‘sir’.

Nicholas Kristof said that bad government policies and environmentalist-led aversion to the use of DDT was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Since Kristof spends a lot of time in these third-world countries researching his data, he knows the difference between fact and myth.

First off, Kristof said that environmentalists blocked the use of DDT against malaria. Environmentalists were trying to stop agricultural use of DDT, which led to widespread resistance among the mosquito population. Many countries stopped using DDT because it had either become ineffective or because they could not control agricultural spraying.

DDT was not a panacea for mosquito vector control, and was ineffective because of resistance in many places. As a result, environmentalists urged the use of other insecticides which were as effective as, or in many cases more effective than, DDT.

But, I can see the confusion caused by getting your malariology from an op ed column rather than first hand sources.

And finally, your blanket “environmentalists” catch-all allows you to create a straw man and lump the activists who think vaccines cause autism in with the vast majority of environmentalists who accept the consensus on that issue as well as the scientific consensus on global warming.

But I’m sure you didn’t mean to use a dishonest rhetorical tactic like that.

Boris – you say: “As a result, environmentalists urged the use of other insecticides which were as effective as, or in many cases more effective than, DDT.”

Kristof says: “The poor countries that were able to keep malaria in check tend to be the same few that continued to use DDT, like Ecuador. Similarly, in Mexico, malaria rose and fell with the use of DDT. South Africa brought back DDT in 2000, after a switch to other pesticides had led to a surge in malaria, and now the disease is under control again. The evidence is overwhelming: DDT saves lives.”

Do you have a link to research that proves that malaria is not on the rise? Do you have a link to proof that the “more effective” insecticides recommended by environmentalists were genuinely more effective?

..and I call environmentalists “environmentalists” because that’s what they call themselves.

Still repeating that canard are you? Lawrence Solomon (“The Deniers”) exploded that myth by having the head of the IPCC admit that the anonymous scientists who reviewed articles for the infamous report did NOT ratify their conclusions, let alone the policy prescriptions.

The fact is, many very reputable climatologists think the notion of AGW is pure bunk.

Then there’s this small matter of the earth’s temperature not having increased over the past ten years, and the “excuse” being that it’s only a temporary phenomenon — one the zealots couldn’t predict!

(which is, of course, why the hypothesis of AGW is not science — its predictions can’t be tested or falsified, but they can bre used to explain everything! A lot like Freud.)

And please tell me when in human history has science ever been built around a “consensus”.
Science would stop in its tracks if everyone just agreed with each other.

But I’m sure you didn’t mean to use a dishonest rhetorical tactic to bolster your case…

“The fact is, many very reputable climatologists think the notion of AGW is pure bunk.”

No. Very few climate scientists think that AGW is bunk. They do not conduct any research and do not publish. Do an ISI web of science search for some of those “climate scientists” and you’ll see they have no reputation at all.

Mary,

Again, an op ed is not a very good source. Read Carson herself, she said that we should spray DDT in a limited manner rather than spraying everywhere.

Kristof is a recognized authority on third world issues and resources. Since you haven’t come up with any source that disputes what he says, I have to assume that he’s right about the effects of restrictions on the use of DDT. His estimate of the deaths caused by these policies was one of the lowest. There were others estimated that estimated millions of deaths.

The jury should be out on the concept of global warming. Temperatures peaked a while ago, but they are going down. Also, there is no form of weather that is not a symptom of global warming. If it gets cooler, that’s proof of global warming. If temperatures are milder, it’s proof of global warming. If supporters of a theory are not willing to recognize any sort of proof that the theory is wrong, then the theory is more like a faith.

However, it’s still a good idea to reduce C02 emissions, and to look for alternatives to oil.

The long running battle between environmentalists and capitalism produced fears of a link between vaccination and autism? Really, Mary? Are you sure that wasn’t the long running battle between science and half-baked journalism allied with a fully-nuts ideology that equates public health measures to a communist plot.

Can you guess which side I think your article is (mostly) on?

Oh yeah, last thing. Heres a tip. Just because capitalism is good it doesn’t make everything you think is bad a product of anti-capitalism. OK?

You are confusing weather and climate when you say that “temperatures peaked a while ago.” It’s a common misconception.

I gave you a source for the environmentalist point of view, from Rachel Carson herself.

So, you are too lazy to actually look and see if there were restrictions on DDT? DDT was not banned. Kristof is wrong. He does not give specific examples of “restrictions,” but you accept his word without question because he is supposed to be some expert on the third world? And you write up a blog post on this level of research. You should be embarrassed by your reliance on third hand, opinionated sources to smear an entire movement.

Once again DDT was never restricted for malaria control. It was restricted for agricultural use, which has likely reduced resistance and allowed DDT to be more effective.

Roy – if I wanted to equate public health measures to a communist plot I would bring up the old paranoia about fluoridation. But that brand of paranoia was generated by the extreme right, not the extreme left. Fears about vaccines are kind of a bipartisan form of paranoia, at the convergence point where both extremes meet and agree.

Boris – Kristof didn’t say that DDT was banned, he said that misguided environmentalists and government agencies opposed the use of DDT. If you don’t want to listen to Kristof, you can listen to the World Health Organization when they say:

“In the early 1960s, several developing countries had nearly wiped out malaria. After they stopped using DDT, malaria came raging back and other control methods have had only modest success.”

Those were the control methods that were recommended by fans of Rachel Carson, which is one of may reasons why she’s not a reliable reference

Arata Kochi, head of the WHO’s antimalaria campaign, has made the move to bring back DDT, for the same reason Kristof promotes DDT, to save millions of lives. His main opposition was from environmental groups. I have no idea why these environmental groups haven’t been sued yet.

“In the early 1960s, several developing countries had nearly wiped out malaria. After they stopped using DDT, malaria came raging back and other control methods have had only modest success.”

This is true, but you are reading way too much into this quotation. The countries stopped spraying DDT because malaria had been nearly eradicated. What they did was create an evolutionary bottleneck where only DDT resistant mosquitoes survived and then multiplied. When they resumed spraying, and they DID resume spraying DDT, it was no longer effective.

You’re using blogger Tim Lambert, one of the few political commenters who is unstable and unintentionally humorous enough to be made into a verb – as a source to prove your point?

Lambert and the general claims that DDT somehow, magically became ineffective at the same time the environmentalists began their Carson -led crusade are dissected here:

Tim Lambert often claims DDT has fallen into disfavour mostly because mosquitoes became resistant to it; the WHO report indicates that there were political and economic pressures but does not specifically mention DDT resistance as a factor.

WHO clearly states that environmentalists, not some sudden and magical ineffectiveness, are the main roadblock to saving lives in Africa.

And I’d love to see Lambert and his fans in the courts. They’re the types who would provide their own (unintentionally absurd) defense…

Mary is being as shallow and unscientific in her attack as some of the environmentalists she is castigating. THis is the kind of pap churned out so some fool with his Bush/Cheney sticker on his Hummer can feel not only good, but actually righteous.

THe new enemy of humanity, environmentalists. They are all Marxist, Pagan, baby killing, Islamo-loving, Obama voting, pot smoking, tree hugging luddites who need to interned and liquidated so our blissful progress can go on

Here’s another story to curl your hair, this one about biofuel subsidies, where the Law of Unintended Consequences kicks in and is costing us millions of dollars.

William LaJeunesse, one of Fox News Channel’s best journalists, reported yesterday on E.D. Hill’s America’s Pulse, on a biofuel scandal costing us millions of dollars caused by an IRS loophole called SPLASH AND DASH. We subsidize corn and soybean biofuels at $1.00 per gallon subsidy for every gallon of biodiesel blended with regular diesel.

Then the law of unintended consequences kicked in. Some smart guys found a loophole. Tankers carrying sugar cane fuel from South America or palm oil from Asia will come over filled with 9 million gallons of biofuel, they’ll dock in Houston or New Orleans, top off with 1% diesel, then that tanker will go to Europe where they will sell at below market rates, but the entire tanker qualifies for the $1. subsidy, $9 million dollars of US taxpayer money subsidizing the fuel of European drivers.

The problem with closing the loophole is that the farmers want the subsidy because there’s a huge market overseas for biodiesel as well and the environmentalists want to encourage biofuels whereas the American driver wants lower gas prices. What to do?

Well, I went ballistic and called my congressional representatives offices locally. Their numbers are in the government pages in the front of your phonebook. Print them out. We should make lots of calls in the next 4 1/2 months. After that, it will be too late, then voters become unimportant and special interest money becomes king until it’s time for the next election. Capitol Switchboard 202-225-3121.

I have become an America Firster because we are AT WAR. Our trade deals are hurting us because our best representatives too often become lobbyists for the other side: China, Japan, South Korea et al. A political friend heeded my appeal to sign Newt Gingrich’s Drill Here, Drill Now petition but wisely added: Drill Here, Drill Now , and SELL HERE. Congressman Shattuck is the one leading the fight to close the biofuels tax loophole. I support family farmers because Mother nature can be a real B*tich, I do not support agribusiness and I’d like to see these “smart guys” (and the oil speculators) fined of ALL their money.

I live in a county where wealthy people don’t want more people moving in. How to stop development? Join environmental groups which can always find a soon to be extinct insect or bird or “is that puddle a wetland” Must protect it.

I looked up my county supervisor’s background and supporters and could not believe how many environmental groups there are.

Rachel Carson’s influence has led to our producing mosquito netting for Africans rather than giving them the DDT which would kill those deadly mosquitoes.

I am a connoisseur of clean air: Bel Air, CA is aptly named and the Fairfax, Ca hills have the most delicious air I’ve breathed). I am a connoisseur of great water (Spain had the best bottled water (for my biochemical makeup) but I’ve forgotten the name of the bottler). And neither Brita nor most bottled waters I’ve sampled are as goo

However, when I hear that progress in Arkansas gets stopped because maybe a few years ago someone saw a woodpecker thought to be extinct. They’re not sure, but maybe, then I think these people are screwy and/or evil.

After attending (another) “too many people” conference 2 weeks ago, you realize that the people advocating green solutions are simply trying to improve their lives. They have food, shelter, entertainment, vacations, seeming everything. The next step up for them would be less people jostling with them for common goods; traffic congestion, grocery lines, event tickets.

That their solution would require a totalitarian suppression of other people is of no concern at all to them.